Enhancement of motor accident compensation by granting 40% future prospects and non-pecuniary damages for loss of amenities.

On the night of March 27–28, 2013, Ravinder Kumar and Sumit Kumar were traveling on a motorcycle driven by Sumit when they were hit by an offending vehicle (HR-10-S-8855) driven rashly by Respondent No. 1

Both sustained grievous injuries; Ravinder (aged 20) suffered 50% permanent physical disability in his right lower limb due to hip arthroplasty

while Sumit (aged 23) suffered 45% permanent physical disability in his right lower limb

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of ₹8,69,732 to Ravinder and ₹10,85,017 to Sumit, based on assessed functional disabilities of 25% and 22% respectively

The appellants moved the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation, citing the absence of future prospects and inadequate awards under non-pecuniary heads

Whether the functional disability of the claimants was correctly assessed by the Tribunal in light of their respective vocations

Whether the claimants are entitled to an addition for "future prospects" in the calculation of loss of future earnings

Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads (pain, suffering, loss of amenities, and marriage prospects) was adequate

The Court relied on the principles laid down in *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343*, which establishes that the Tribunal must assess the actual impact of physical disability on the specific earning capacity of the injured rather than relying solely on medical percentages

It further applied *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680* to grant a 40% addition for future prospects given the age of the claimants

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governed the statutory right of appeal for enhancement

The Court upheld the MACT’s assessment of functional disability (25% for Ravinder and 22% for Sumit), noting that despite the higher medical disability percentages (50% and 45% respectively), the injuries were "non-progressive" and the claimants failed to produce evidence showing that their specific vocations were totally or substantially impeded

Following *Pranay Sethi*, the Court added 40% for future prospects to the income of both claimants, as they were under 40 years of age

Furthermore, the Court determined that the Tribunal had overlooked essential non-pecuniary heads; consequently, it awarded ₹1,00,000 each to both claimants for "loss of amenities of life" and "loss of marriage prospects," noting these are standard requirements in serious personal injury cases involving permanent disability per *Raj Kumar*

For Ravinder Kumar, the award was increased from ₹8,69,732 to ₹12,60,136

For Sumit Kumar, the award was increased from ₹10,85,017 to ₹14,52,564

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition within four weeks

All pending applications were disposed of as infructuous